Contents1. Law change planned
to stop patents of humans2. Genetic evidence
links Jews to their ancient tribe3. THE APPLIANCE
OF SCIENCE; SCIENTISTS FEEL THAT JOURNALISTS DON'T
UNDERSTAND THEM. A NEW MEDIA CENTRE COULD BRING THE TWO
CAMPS TOGETHER, WRITES TRISTRAM HUNT

The Dominion (Wellington) November 16, 2001HEADLINE: Law change planned to stop patents of humansBODY: THE Government says it is changing the patents
law to ban attempts topatent human beings. The law change -- announced yesterday
is in line withrecommendations made by the world-first Royal Commission
on GeneticModification in its report in July.

One of the recommendations was that a specific exclusion
be added to patentlaw for the copyright of humans and the biological processes
for generatingthem. The commission said that questions of morality
arose when consideringwhether patents should be granted for humans and human-related
matter. Intheory a patent could not be taken over a human, a human
body part, or ahuman gene in its natural host. "At best, a patent could
be granted for a synthetic dnamolecule carrying the same information as found in the
human body, or amethod for producing a novel human organ or body part
suitable fortransplantation."

It was unlikely that a patent covering human beings
would be granted underexisting New Zealand law and practice, but "to put the
issue beyond doubt itwould be desirable to cover the point specifically by
statute".* NZPA Suppliedby New Zealand Press Association LOAD-DATE: November
19,2001 [Entered November 20, 2001]

Genetic evidence links Jews to their ancient tribeBy Judy SiegelJERUSALEM (November 20) - Genetic evidence continues
to provide additionalproof to the claims that the Jewish people are descended
from a commonancient Israelite father: Despite being separated for
over 1,000 years,Sephardi Jews of North African origin are genetically
indistinguishable fromtheir brethren from Iraq, according to The Hebrew University
of Jerusalem.They also proved that Sephardi Jews are very close genetically
to the Jewsof Kurdistan, and only slight differences exist between
these two groups andAshkenazi Jews from Europe.These conclusions are reached in an article published
recently in theAmerican Journal of Human Genetics and written by Prof.
Ariella Oppenheim ofthe Hebrew University (HU) and Hadassah-University Hospital
in Ein Kerem.Others involved are German doctoral student Almut Nebel,
Dr. Marina Faermanof HU, Dr. Dvora Filon of Hadassah-University Hospital,
and other colleaguesfrom Germany and India.The researchers conducted blood tests of Ashkenazi, Sephardi
and KurdishJews and examined their Y chromosomes, which are carried
only by males. Theythen compared them with those of various Arab groups
- Palestinians,Beduins, Jordanians, Syrians and Lebanese - as well as
to non-Arabpopulations from Transcaucasia - Turks, Armenians and
Moslem Kurds.The study is based on 526 Y chromosomes typed by the
Israeli team andadditional data on 1,321 individuals from 12 populations.
The typing of theJewish groups was performed at the National Genome Center
at HU's SilbermanInstitute of Life Sciences.The Fertile Crescent of the Middle East was one of the
few centers in whichthe transition from hunting-gathering to permanent settlement
andagriculture took place. Genetic studies suggest that
migrating Neolithicfarmers dispersed their technological innovations and
domesticated animalsfrom the Middle East towards Europe, North Africa and
Southwest Asia.Studies of Y chromosomes have become powerful tools for
the investigation ofthe genetic history of males, since these chromosomes
are transmitted fromfathers to sons.Surprisingly, the study shows a closer genetic affinity
by Jews to thenon-Jewish, non-Arab populations in the northern part
of the Middle Eastthan to Arabs. These findings are consistent with known
cultural links thatexisted among populations in the Fertile Crescent in
early history, andindicate that the Jews are direct descendants of the
early Middle Easterncore populations, which later divided into distinct ethnic
groups speakingdifferent languages.Previous investigations by the HU researchers suggested
a common origin forJewish and non-Jewish populations living in the Middle
East. The currentstudy refines and delineates that connection.It is believed that the majority of today's Jews - not
including convertsand non-Jews with whom Jews intermarried - descended
from the ancientIsraelis that lived in the historic Land of Israel until
the destruction ofthe Second Temple and their dispersal into the Diaspora.The researchers say that a genetic analysis of the chromosomes
of Jews fromvarious countries show that there was practically no
genetic intermixingbetween them and the host populations among which they
were scattered duringtheir dispersion - whether in Eastern Europe, Spain,
Portugal or NorthAfrica.A particularly intriguing case illustrating this is that
of the KurdishJews, said to be the descendants of the Ten Tribes of
Israel who were exiledin 723 BCE. to the area known today as Kurdistan, located
in Northern Iraq,Iran and Eastern Turkey. They continued to live there
as a separate entityuntil their immigration to Israel in the 1950s. The Kurdish
Jews of todayshow a much greater affinity to their fellow Jews elsewhere
than to theKurdish Moslems.The Jerusalem PostContents

The Independent (London) November 20, 2001, TuesdaySECTION: FEATURES; Pg. 8 LENGTH: 706 wordsHEADLINE: MEDIA: THE APPLIANCE OF SCIENCE; SCIENTISTS
FEEL THAT JOURNALISTS DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM. A NEW MEDIA CENTRE COULD BRING
THE TWO CAMPS TOGETHER, WRITES TRISTRAM HUNTBYLINE: Tristram Hunt Susan Greenfield: media donBODY: SCIENCE IS dictating how we live with a brutal
momentum. Climatechange, surveillance technology and, now, bio-terrorism
are unassailable componentsof modern society. Yet the British public is still ignorant
of the mostelementary aspects of scientific inquiry, and the scientific
establishment is arrogantly complicit in that ignorance. While much of
society is now media-savvy, science hasbeen left behind.Groups opposed to scientific research are always there
to take the call.And scientists have shown a masochistic lack of interest
in public debate;their preferred medium is there are f ied pages of peer-reviewed
journals such as Nature. Scientists have a proper concern for the
discipline of their method and are wary of speakingout before their thesis has been tested by colleagues.
The memory of thecold fusion "breakthrough", later proved horribly wrong,
weighs heavy.Pressure groups talk in the black- and-white language
loved by reporters;academics are usually more diffident. Scientists have
been further scaredaway from public engagement by the media frenzy around
GM technology in1999, science's annus horribilis. The reduction of a
complex branch ofbiological engineering to "Frankenstein food" was typical
of media hopelessly ill equipped to discuss scientific progress rationally.
And into the vacuum stepped big business. Whatinflicted the greatest damage on GM science was that
the case for the defence was fronted by the bio-tech groups Monsanto and
AstraZeneca. Science's self-abnegation has underminedsupport for the very principle of scientific endeavour.
At a time when most people gleanscientific knowledge from the media, a refusal to engage
with the popularpress has been deeply detrimental. But this hapless amateurism
may be aboutto change. Next month comes the official launch of the
Royal Institute'sScience Media Centre - a belated attempt to claw back
some of the lostground in public trust. The centre is the brainchild
of the institute'sdirector, Susan Greenfield, and the broadcaster Lord
Bragg of Wigton. As an Oxford professor in pharmacology and a media don,
Greenfield has watched the collapse offaith in science and trust in scientists. Much of it,
she believes, can be put down to an oftenunintentional media bias. While lobby groups get their
message out quickly,science is left behind by the media cycle. Greenfield's
aim is to helpjournalists to find the right scientist to talk
to at the right time. "We need to help scientists understand the demands
of the media," she says. And it is vital, says Lord Bragg, "that scientists
learn to communicate if they are not to be marginalised". The centre's
target isbusy news journalists who need the "science view". The
Astronomer Royal, SirMartin Rees, says that making sure all journalists have
a grasp of scienceissues is the only way to "raise the debate above tabloid
sloganising". Thechallenge is to place science firmly in the public realm,
where "it can bediscussed properly as part of general news and culture".
The Royal Societyis now taking a more proactive stance on science controversies.
Recentbriefing papers on stem-cell therapy and nuclear energy
have been deployedwith far greater media acumen than usual. Stories are
being placed and even"leaked" - a sure sign of professionalism. Also in London,
the ScienceMuseum is providing a forum for pro-science pressure
groups and universities to meet;next year the British Association for the Advancement
of Science relocatesto the museum's Wellcome Wing. Is all this making a difference?
Things do seem to beimproving slowly. Most people remain opposed to GM technology
but are lessopposed to researching it.

Government support for the animal research company
Huntingdon Life Sciencesmet with general approval.

Parliament passed a Bill allowing research into
stem-cell therapy. The ideathat the more we learn about science the more we will
love it is misguided.We can know as much as we like about genetic engineering
and still oppose it. But with proper debate, we would at least have sufficient
knowledge to choose whether toembrace new discoveries or fear them. At the moment we
are given only half the story.